In a provincial District Court a guardian ad litem (GAL), through their solicitor, raised issues about the aftercare plan for a child who was approaching the age of majority. The GAL was concerned that the plan did not meet the child’s needs.
The child had refused to sign the aftercare plan provided by her aftercare worker. It was alleged that the child was told that if she did not sign the plan she might be left homeless. The solicitor for the GAL submitted that the aftercare manager should attend court to explain how the process was child-centred. The GAL stated that “aftercare should be child led and not resource driven”.
Evidence of the CFA team leader
The social work team leader was called by the Child and Family Agency (CFA). When asked about the concerns raised, the team leader stated that the child wished to remain in her current accommodation for a further year. The team leader accepted that there needed to be better communication between the parties involved. She stated that the CFA wanted to do the right thing by the child but accepted that she was not overly familiar with the aftercare process and the supports available.
The team leader stated that the child had been offered a two-year programme with accommodation. It was not independent living, though it was similar to her current accommodation. She said the child had more work to do. The team leader confirmed that the allocated social worker had visited the proposed accommodation. She accepted that the social work department did not have the same familiarity with aftercare services as the aftercare team. The child would reach the age of majority in three months’ time.
The team leader stated that the aftercare worker was correct to identify that the child was at risk of homelessness if she did not avail of the current offer. If she did not buy into the plan she would be at risk of becoming isolated. When asked if it was possible to have a derogation for as long as the child needed, the team leader stated that the aftercare team had been looking for accommodation for a year already, and the current provider might allow her to stay a little longer. She said that if the child did not accept the current offer, she might not get another placement, and if she became more open to it at a later point, it might no longer be available.
The team leader agreed that the decision regarding accommodation should not be dependent on funding. She believed the child might be thinking more in the short term.
Under cross-examination by the solicitor for the father, it was put to the team leader that she was standing over someone else’s plan and that the aftercare manager should attend court to address the issues raised. The team leader stated that she did not have the same level of knowledge of the aftercare services as the aftercare team. It was put to her that there had been little communication between the CFA and the father regarding the aftercare plan. The team leader replied that the relationship between the child and her father had its ups and downs and that he had previously indicated he needed fewer updates. She noted that he did not attend court.
Evidence of the guardian ad litem
The GAL gave evidence that the child was not satisfied with her aftercare plan. When asked about the way forward, the GAL said that since the last occasion she had researched the relevant legislation, policy and procedure of the CFA. There had been little consultation with the child in relation to the plan, let alone with the GAL, she said. The proposed accommodation was the only option mooted to the child. The GAL said she understood the difficulties with remaining in the current accommodation related to payments, as it was expensive and the accommodation was needed for other young people who required that type of alternative care to help them mature.
The GAL stated that this was not just about accommodation but also about education. The child was motivated to progress her education. She was in a good place in the community and wanted to pursue education. She currently held a level three qualification and wished to achieve a level four. The GAL stated that the child was looking for no more than another year in her current accommodation. In circumstances where no collaboration had been carried out with her, it would be hard to sell the proposed plan. The child had simply been told this was what was available.
The GAL also noted that there was valuable information about the child’s life that was not included in the aftercare plan. The plan needed to take account of the child’s well-being. She was attending counselling, and her current accommodation was better than her previous foster care, where she had spent days on end in her bedroom. The child now wanted to improve her life.
The solicitor for the father submitted that the child’s father was anxious for her to remain in her current accommodation arrangement.
The judge stated that she wanted the aftercare workers to attend court as she wanted to hear directly from the aftercare team.
Subsequent hearing
When the case appeared before the District Court again (before a different judge), the CFA had members of the aftercare team present. The CFA called the allocated social worker to give evidence.
Evidence of the allocated social worker
The allocated social worker confirmed the authorship and accuracy of her report before the court. When asked about the issue of accommodation, she stated that the current aftercare plan involved the child returning to the urban area she was from for a two-year programme.
The social worker expressed some worries about the child going to the proposed accommodation. She noted that the child was currently in semi-independent living accommodation and would ideally like a similar type of setup when she left care. The social worker stated that the child would be considered for housing by Focus Ireland but that the proposed accommodation would be offered to her.
When asked whether her current accommodation was available beyond her eighteenth birthday, the social worker stated that, until recently, such children had been considered for this type of accommodation, but its purpose and function had changed and it was now receiving younger children.
When asked about the child’s resistance to returning to the urban area, the social worker stated that there had been resistance at the start. Since then, she had been informing and encouraging the child to consider returning. The social worker noted that the GAL had recently travelled to meet the child as recently as the previous day, and the child was now more open to coming back to the urban area and considering the proposed accommodation, although she remained understandably resistant.
Regarding education, the social worker stated that the plan was for the child to attend a local Youthreach facility and complete the LCA programme at the end of the current academic year. The child was familiar with staff at this facility. Regarding financial supports, the social worker confirmed that the aftercare allowance would be available, as would the training allowance if the child continued with education. There would then be a small weekly sum to discharge for accommodation.
social worker stated that when the child spoke with the GAL she had requested to stay in her current placement for three or four more weeks. The social worker said she was satisfied with the level of detail in the aftercare plan, as it had been revised and reviewed a number of times.
The social worker stated that the child had made great progress in her current accommodation and she hoped that the child would continue to avail of supports and the proposed accommodation. There were no questions from the lawyer for the GAL.
Evidence of the guardian ad litem
The GAL gave evidence and stated that there had been a number of revisions to the aftercare plan. At this time, the option on the table was the best one for the child. The child would like to remain in her current accommodation, where she was considered a very valuable member and it had been great to see her thrive. The GAL noted that the national placement team appeared to be changing the brief for the current accommodation and prioritising younger people. She described the situation as quite dire when young people left care with limited options available to them.
The GAL stated that she believed sound advice had been provided by the aftercare workers and she trusted that they would take care of the child. It required buy-in from the child in the educational planning, and if everything was coordinated, it could work very well for her. The GAL’s biggest concern was the child “hanging around” when she returned to the urban area, which could cause her to regress.
When asked about specific concerns around education, the GAL said she believed the proposed programme would blend in well, the child would be challenged there, and she might have better housing options in time.
When asked about balancing the proposed programme with what the child wanted, the GAL stated that when the current proposal was presented, the child’s current accommodation was not an option and there was no point in arguing further about it as it would have done a disservice to the child. The GAL expressed concern that the child had said she would go back with her father, and it had been made clear to her that this would be the most unwise decision she could make.
Judge’s decision
The judge stated that this was a review of an aftercare plan. She had heard from the social worker and the GAL. She noted the extensive work done and that the plan was now being put in place. The judge observed that the aftercare plan was not signed by the child. She completed the review on the proviso that the plan recorded the child’s wish to stay in her current accommodation at the end of the following two month period, in addition to her concerns about returning to the urban area.
The judge stated that she would put the case in for mention the following month for the current accommodation provider to indicate whether they would allow the child to stay until the end of that two month period. The judge noted the comments in the GAL’s reports that “[child’s name] deserves the very best life can offer her”. She stated that she believed the few weeks sought by the child would be of benefit to her.